Private Sector Investment: Lancashire

Maya Ellis Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to debate Government support for private investment in Lancashire this evening. Lancashire is my home. It is also the home of some of the most powerful innovators that we have in this country. Often, they fly under the radar of both Government and private investors. In many ways, that is because they do not need us. They already have exceptional trade links and supply chains within their own sectors—decades-old business models in multi-generational companies that just work—so they crack on, quietly making money for this country and prosperity for themselves. In some ways, they do not need our help when they have figured it out for themselves for so long, but we need them. We need companies that have drive and that, with Government support and further investment in enabling infrastructure, could do 10 times what they are currently doing for our economy.

As a Labour Government, we are great at helping people who are struggling and who do not have the opportunities they deserve. I am grateful for the millions this Government are investing into Lancashire through Pride in Place projects, which will absolutely improve health and wellbeing—something we have particular need for in our county, where poor health accounts for a significant portion of the productivity gap. But, as a Labour Government, I think we could be more honest with ourselves that while overcoming deprivation is a top priority, growth is a top priority too. We could also be better at recognising where those growth opportunities are.

I think it is fair to say that this Government are pretty convinced by agglomeration economics and by the idea that if we invest in city regions, the wealth will trickle out. But what happens somewhere like Lancashire, where there is already wealth but it has been supported consistently for decades by EU funding and then by the crisis and resilience fund and the shared prosperity fund, all of which have now been removed? It feels shortsighted to pull the rug from under Lancashire’s thriving economy in the hope that some wealth might trickle out from surrounding city regions in 20 years or so.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, particularly around growth in cities and towns, which I am particularly interested in. Over the last 10 years, we have seen growth of around 10% in our cities whereas growth has been around 5% in our towns. Does she agree that if we do not invest in our towns, particularly where they are outside of city regions, we will miss a crucial opportunity to uplift everyone?

[Maya Ellis]

I absolutely agree. As I will come on to, it is about ensuring that we make the most of all areas of our country. Some of those areas already have growth, and we need to ensure that we are expanding the growth that is already there.

Without a proper holistic look at how the Government can support businesses in Lancashire, not only will businesses struggle, but our UK economy will struggle more when we miss out on the huge potential for growth.

I could stand here all night waxing lyrical about how wonderful Lancashire is—our hills, our grand town halls, our coastline, our grit—but I know none of those things speak the language of the Treasury, Government and growth, so I will focus on the numbers and the examples of how the Government have a growth opportunity in Lancashire that they need to not miss.

Lancashire is a £40 billion GVA powerhouse. That makes us the 5th largest economy in the north. As the Minister knows, the current growth narrative for the north is often dominated by our major metropolitan neighbours. While we celebrate their success, any true growth narrative for the north must take non-metropolitan areas into account. At this point, let me be clear: “non-metropolitan” does not mean rural. There is a serious risk of people in Westminster making that mistake.

[Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for the Ribble Valley in Lancashire. Does she agree that Lancashire has missed out on millions of pounds of investment because the likes of Manchester and Liverpool have been prioritised and because we have not had a fully functioning combined authority?

[Maya Ellis]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. As I will come on to, the people and places in counties such as Lancashire deserve that kind of funding. Even if the politicians who have been making the decisions have maybe delayed those opportunities to get devolution, we should not penalise the people there for that.

Lancashire is a prime example of a polycentric economy. We have coastal and rural environments, but also urban environments from city centres to market towns, with many of the same issues and opportunities as our metropolitan neighbours. We are a county of 1.57 million people and over 55,000 businesses, contributing a massive portion of the north’s economic output. We face the same challenges—some of the highest levels of deprivation and worklessness in our urban pockets—yet we also have areas that rank in the top five of northern local authorities for productivity. We are not just waiting for growth; we have an economic base that matches any of our neighbours, where strengths in defence, energy and advanced engineering add unique productive potential to the north as a whole.

The private sector in Lancashire is ready to lead. We have a dynamic project pipeline with the potential to attract over £20 billion in additional investment over the next decade. However, we are currently fighting with one hand tied behind our back. The macroeconomic data tells a sobering story: since 1998, Lancashire has experienced the lowest growth in investment spending of any UK region. Despite our high-value production base, we rank in the bottom quarter for average Innovate UK grant size, for example. These grants are increasingly concentrated in areas with strong knowledge-intensive business services, rather than production-oriented economies such as Lancashire’s.

We must be honest about what Lancashire is missing out on because we lack mayoral arrangements, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) highlighted. Currently, we are excluded from 30-year investment funds estimated to be worth £30 million per year for our county. We are also missing out on the collective £200 million per year available to new mayoral areas and the city region sustainable transport settlements that our neighbours in Greater Manchester and Liverpool enjoy.

[Mr Foster]

On transport and infrastructure, we are all aware in Lancashire that if we could have investment in a second bridge across the River Ribble linking the M55 and opening up Blackpool airport, and linking it with the M6 and the M65, we could have huge opportunity, but the Government, the Green Book and the Treasury do not seem to want to recognise or support that. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Maya Ellis]

I completely agree. As many of my constituents regularly tell me, the congestion we get when the M6 fails or has a closure is a nightmare when it falls on to the A-roads around the constituency, so a second bridge around Preston to create a ring road is critical.

Staying with the subject of transport, my hon. Friends the Members for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) and for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) are having to fight relentlessly for better connectivity in their constituencies, which is where devolution could really help us. The Government may say that Lancashire did not come to the table when the offer was first there for devolution, but that is not the fault of Lancashire’s places and people, so it does not seem fair that they should suffer. Lancashire leaders are at the table now, so let us crack on.

The disparities are reflected in our venture capital and equity investment volumes, which trail significantly behind Greater Manchester. In the first quarter of 2024, Greater Manchester reached approximately £104 million in investment, while Lancashire secured just £7 million. That innovation gap is not due to a lack of ingenuity; it is a lack of investment that acts as a direct drag on our wider commercial performance.

When I speak to private investors—both those investing in small companies and those investing in big infrastructure —they often sheepishly tell me they know they should probably be doing more in Lancashire, but that they are creatures of habit. I am making it one of my missions to coax more of them up to Lancashire to see what is on offer, but I ask the Minister not to let this Government fall into the same bad habit of sticking to what we know, even though there is clearly such growth potential in Lancashire.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is giving a passionate articulation of the frustration felt by many of us outside non-metropolitan areas. We feel that frustration greatly in Redditch, where we are south of the West Midlands combined authority border. I find that difficult to explain to my students who want extra funding in education or to those who want transport links that do not get funding because we miss out on every partnership and every strategic housing fund. If we are really going to get the economy moving and growing, that has to happen in our towns—towns like Redditch—that led the industrial revolution many years before we had even heard of metro mayors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maya Ellis]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. As much as the debate is about Lancashire, one thing that will underpin change for both our counties is a commitment to devolution and to towns, so that the focus is not just on our cities.

We know what works. Our enterprise zones at Samlesbury and Warton have already helped to deliver a cumulative £1.2 billion in private investment. In the wider north-west, private capital already supports 873 businesses. We have world-class assets, from BAE Systems, which supports 20,000 jobs in the north-west and partners with 1,400 UK suppliers, to our nuclear renaissance, anchored by Springfields, Westinghouse and Heysham.

The data is firmly on our side. Lancashire offers a cost-effectiveness ratio of 1:80 for tech talent. That means that a tech professional’s take-home pay goes significantly further in Preston or Blackburn than in London or even Manchester. We are a magnet for the next generation of start-ups, already producing 16 academic spin-outs from our universities that have raised £36 million in equity this year.

I will take a moment to highlight a couple of specific initiatives that exemplify our county’s proactive approach to investment. Fhunded is a project close to my heart, as I had the privilege of working directly on its development during my time at Lancashire county council, prior to my election to this place. I want to give a huge thanks to my former colleagues at LCC, especially Dan Knowles and Rory Southworth, who have nurtured this initiative into the vital economic engine it is today. Fhunded has become a cornerstone of our early-stage finance community, acting as a curated bridge that brings our brightest founders and most ambitious funders together. Its impact is undeniable. The vast majority of equity raised in Lancashire throughout 2024 was generated through connections made via the Fhunded initiative. It serves as a perfect case study for this debate: a local government-funded catalyst that is successfully mobilising private capital and ensuring our high-potential start-ups can thrive right there in Lancashire.

Another brilliant publicly funded initiative is the RedCAT Catapult run by East Lancashire Chamber of Commerce. It has exceeded targets set by the previous Government on return on investment, supporting businesses in the low carbon technology and advanced manufacturing sectors. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) is meeting the Minister soon to discuss the initiative, and we would welcome some initial thoughts today on potential support for future funding.

Beyond the big names, we must support our foundational economy. In Lancashire, family-owned, mid-tier businesses are the key to the supply chains that drive our most vital sectors. They have the potential to scale, to bring new innovation and to distribute growth across our entire economic base. KeTech, in my constituency, is an established software and data SME that powers 80% of the UK’s train data, but has struggled with winning UK contracts over foreign competitors. Our ability to work with such small and medium-sized enterprises is currently heavily constrained by the loss of local economic development funds, but the Lancashire county combined authority has the potential to drive key pilot activity based on our leadership in the mid-tier business council.

When it comes to growth, we know from our city region neighbours that it was the investment in culture and night-time economy that attracted the young talent needed for innovation to really thrive. The Guild Hall in Preston was a key entertainment venue for the whole of Lancashire but closed in 2019 due to reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete and will take over £60 million to rebuild. I hope that the Ministers in the Departments for Business and Trade and for Culture, Media and Sport speak regularly about the impact cultural investment like that can have on attracting talent and growth, and I hope that they will support Blog Preston’s campaign to reopen the venue.

The county has quick wins and immediate opportunities in defence, energy and advanced manufacturing that simply do not exist elsewhere in the north. There are pipeline investments from Government that, if pushed through quickly, could provide a win-win-win by stimulating local economic growth, supporting the UK to retain key sovereign capabilities and driving national growth—the most important mission for our Labour Government.

While my primary aim today is to put Lancashire back at the heart of Government thinking in general, I also have, as Members would imagine, some specific asks of the Government. First, will the Government confirm funding for the permanent home of the National Cyber Force at Samlesbury in my constituency via the defence investment plan? This £5 billion commitment by the previous Government needs continued engagement from Ministers.

Secondly, will the Government continue their investment in the National Cyber Force ecosystem, including investment in the Blackburn cyber and skills campus, to ensure that my constituents get the skills to work at the National Cyber Force and that we do not just bring people in from elsewhere in the country?

Thirdly, will the Government confirm funds to Westinghouse for next-generation nuclear fuel capabilities? Westinghouse at Springfields is the supplier of choice to fuel the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent platform.

Fourthly, will the Government progress the office relocation requirements of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs as an anchor tenant to bring forward a new office quarter around Preston station?

Fifthly, will the Government fast-track our move toward a mayoral combined authority with a commitment in the spring spending review for an interim settlement, similar to other areas, that allows Lancashire to pull its weight—as it clearly can—alongside its northern neighbours?

I am nearly finished. Sixthly, echoing the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster), will the Government scope the return on investment of a second bridge across the River Ribble, west of Preston, to create a ring road around Preston and unlock the increasing gridlock in our rapidly growing county?

Finally, will the Government commit to regular engagement with Lancashire MPs through the all-party parliamentary group on Lancashire, which I chair, to ensure that Ministers fully understand the opportunities for Lancashire to make a significant contribution to the UK economy?

I am a red rose through and through in both party and county. I came back to Lancashire, and I will likely be there forever, because I see not only the potential, but a way of doing growth better—of businesses grounded in community, with care for the environment in which we are lucky to work and live and with a quiet relentlessness to thrive. Our businesses lead with humility; they understand risk and reward, and that is what makes them stronger. Those are Labour values, and it should be this Labour Government who help those values and those businesses to thrive. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maya Ellis Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

As the Minister knows, we do not normally use names, and he will not be doing it again.

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking to help increase the uptake of paternity leave by low-income earners.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her continued hard work in this area. From April 2026, subject to parliamentary approval, statutory paternity pay will increase from £187.18 to £194.32 per week. The Employment Rights Bill will make paternity leave a day one right, extending eligibility to 32,000 more fathers and partners and ensuring that parents who move jobs to increase their pay will not lose their entitlement to paternity leave. The parental leave and pay review, launched on 1 July, will examine current and future parental leave entitlements, including paternity leave and pay.

[Maya Ellis]

I thank the Minister for how seriously she is taking this issue when, according to the latest analysis by the Dad Shift, 90% of paternity leave is claimed by fathers in the top half of earners, with almost a third of those being in London and the south-east. Anna Whitehouse and George Gabriel, who I will meet later today, are among a huge cacophony of voices in this country that are crying out for us to recognise the need for inclusive policies that put the voices of all parents at the heart of our growth, health and wellbeing strategies. Can the Minister confirm that this Labour Government will finally put them there?

[Kate Dearden]

I thank my hon. Friend and those she mentions for their unwavering commitment to supporting parents—I was delighted to meet the Dad Shift recently. We are committed to improving the lives of working families. Alongside expanding access to paternity leave and unpaid parental leave, benefiting over 1 million more parents, we are strengthening flexible working rights and bolstering protections for new and expectant mothers. But more needs to be done. This year, we launched the parental leave and pay review to explore how the system can better support working families and reflect modern work and childcare realities. I look forward to working with her and hearing further from her constituents about the impact those changes could have for working people, especially those on lower incomes.

Parental Leave Review

Maya Ellis Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

It was indeed a pleasure to meet the right hon. Member’s constituent Christina. She raised an important issue, which we know is not isolated. As he will know, a carer’s leave review is being undertaken, and that is probably the more appropriate forum for this issue, but I know that he will continue to campaign passionately on this matter and I look forward to that further engagement.

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

May I first pay tribute to the Prime Minister and the Business Secretary, along with many others, for leading from the front on the importance of their role as fathers? I truly believe that paternity leave is the single most important area where the Government can improve the lives of families and women, too. I hope that we can get to providing six weeks’ paternity leave paid by the Government at 90% of pay. Employee support, though, will be critical to making that a success. Does the Minister agree that the review is an opportunity to engage and provide clarity to businesses on how to work with paternity leave and parental leave?

[Justin Madders]

One thing that has become clear, not particularly in relation to paternity leave but in relation to shared parental leave, is that employers often find it difficult to navigate the system, never mind the parents. We will be considering and looking at that as part of the review.

Businesses in Rural Areas

Maya Ellis Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this brilliant debate.

My constituency is a fantastic mix of urban pockets and vast rural areas, with some incredible businesses, including Butlers Farmhouse Cheeses, James’ Places hotels and Massey Feeds. I have just come from the Countryside Alliance awards in the House of Lords, and the hottest restaurant in the north-west, Eight at Gazegill, has just won the rural enterprise award.

Hon. Members have raised really important issues, including affordable housing, transport and congested country roads, but I want to focus on a particular point that I am concerned about following the spending review last week. My rural constituency in the county of Lancashire and many other areas across the UK are about to lose the last pockets of business support funding.

The areas that remain without a mayoral devolution deal are predominantly rural shire counties, and in the spending review it was confirmed that the shared prosperity fund will end in 2026. It was obviously meant to be a bridging fund to replace the millions of pounds of regional development funding that areas such as Lancashire used to receive from the EU, and it predominantly funded business growth hubs and other business support.

As of next year, all local growth and business support funding will be channelled into mayoral areas. I would be grateful if the Minister could assure us that further plans will be made to continue supporting innovative and high-growth businesses across our non-mayoral areas; otherwise, we are set to miss out on huge opportunities for innovation in the often more community-driven and community-embedded businesses that we value and want to encourage.

I am conscious of time, so I will end by saying that I look forward to the Government building out our strategies to understand rural economies more. I support the calls for a proper strategy. We need to grip the rural opportunity in this country, and that starts with the rural businesses that keep those areas thriving.

Hair and Beauty Sector: Government Policy

Maya Ellis Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) for securing this important debate on a sector that, as she rightly says, is often overlooked but is a critical part of many of our communities, including mine in Ribble Valley in Lancashire.

As I am sure my colleagues will reference, the hair and beauty sector is a thriving economic powerhouse, contributing huge amounts to the UK economy while increasing visitors to high streets and promoting community wellbeing. Given its impact on not only the economy but our physical wellness, we must ensure that the whole sector is regulated effectively. I want to highlight my concerns and those of the Ribble Valley residents I have spoken to about the regulation of the beauty sector in particular.

It is deeply concerning that aesthetic medicine, a medical speciality recognised by the Royal Society of Medicine, is often considered just another part of the hair and beauty sector. If it were cardiology or dermatology, there would rightly be huge concern over non-medical professionals performing high-risk procedures. Aesthetic treatments are not cosmetic extras; they can be invasive medical procedures with serious risks, including blindness, tissue necrosis and death. I have recently read several tragic news stories of individuals—such as Alice Webb, a mother of five—who have died after undergoing non- surgical treatments, including the increasingly popular Brazilian butt lift, known as the BBL procedure. No charges have been brought because it is still not illegal.

However, it was promising to hear that last December, Save Face, a Government-approved register of trusted practitioners, met with the Government to share Alice’s story and discuss potential solutions to stop untrained individuals from performing such procedures. One of my constituents, Dr Natalie Haworth, has said that as a medical professional with her own aesthetic clinic, The Doctor & Company, she has to routinely manage complications previously caused by poorly trained practitioners. Legitimate, medically-trained professionals such as Dr Natalie undergo training built on years of foundational medical education, ethical standards and regulatory oversight. A three to seven-day course cannot replicate that. The increase in unreputable training providers across social media is increasingly worrying. We must look into training standards to rectify the situation.

Across the UK, invasive procedures such as fillers, liposuction and facelifts are being performed in unregulated salons. These are overwhelmingly carried out on women, reflecting a systemic failure to take the risks seriously—often dismissed as a women’s issue or vanity. In a society where our beauty standards are shaped by social media and celebrity culture, there is no doubt that aesthetics treatments will continue to grow. In 2024 alone, the UK aesthetics industry grew by a considerable 8.4%.

Unregulated actors in this space lower the reputation of the whole industry, which in turn impacts the success of safe and legitimate services like those provided by my constituent, Natalie. We must therefore work to tackle the rise of unregulated cosmetic procedures. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government plan to follow up on the previous Government’s consultation on non-surgical cosmetic procedures? The Government must listen to women’s stories and work to act and legislate on aesthetic medicine to ensure that people’s safety is secured.

Meanwhile, the NHS shoulders the burden. A&E departments are seeing increasing complications from fillers, botox and laser treatments that should have been managed in a clinical setting. The industry must not be overlooked. We need to support trained practitioners and advocate for women seeking treatments by prioritising the raising of standards across this dynamic sector.